User talk:Deville/Archive 2

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
• You can leave your message on this talk page here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.84.56.166 (talk • contribs)

Just curious as to why you keep deleting my edit on the 2008 Presidential elections page. Doug Stanhope is running for President and as a natural born citizen of the United States over the age 35, he has every right to do so. His decision to run has been reported in various articles, interviews, and is listed on his own website. He should be listed along with all the other independent candidates. What's your issue with it? Why is Cassandra Hefton and Daniel Imperato able to be listed, but Doug Stanhope can't? - User talk:70.162.103.220

please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for the revert on my userpage! --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you voted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex King-Clark. I rewrote the article rather completely, and wonder if you could take a new look and see if that changed your mind. AnonEMouse 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I did. What you did to the article was good work, and I think it definitely passes WP:N now.--Deville (Talk) 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit you suggested that we merge the article Preying from the Pulpit with First Baptist Church of Hammond. 8 out of 10 people who commented there agreed with you and said we should remove the article by deleting or merging its content with First Baptist Church of Hammond. Now the admin that removed the AfD has placed a merge tag on the article instead. Can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond#Merging with Preying from the Pulpit? Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have opened a RfC concerning the article and the Vivaldi at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Arbusto 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you see this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic group names used as insults? --Lambiam^Talk 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll take a look, although I must express some surprise to get this message on my page. It's no problem, but may I ask why you decided to notify me about this? --Deville (Talk) 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I notified all users who had several edits to the article, thinking they were potentially interested. --Lambiam^Talk 05:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Australian politicians are there only to confuse things. Concentrate mainly on Harvey and Kanhai. Tintin (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can either move the whole page to User_talk:Deville/Archive1 and start with a fresh page, or manually cut and paste the contents of this page to User_talk:Deville/Archive1 Tintin (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Presentation wise, the {{subst:archivebox}} looks the best. I use it. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ganesh has already answered the question. IMHO cut/paste would be the better choice. PS : It is time that I used that archivebox thing too :-) Tintin (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Deville, Did I convince you that those are not predictions at Talk:Limits to Growth, or do you think that you are correct? Jrincayc 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Woops, I didn't realize you had replied, I'll reply there.--Deville (Talk) 12:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

the organization is officially recognized by such big groups as satmar which gives it enough legitimacy to be written about in wikipadia

If you can find anyone that is satmar will tell you that this organization is officially backed by the rabbi’s rabbi Avrahm Lytner rabbi Zalmen Liyb Fillip (dean in the satmar rabbinical court) and more.

I will try to find an ad that was pleased in the New York Times with the signatures of several satmar rabbis

Bloger 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear user I didn’t see that you edited the article to make it look better, since someone redirected the page I reposted the article in its primitive version so your are very welcome to apply your edits so it looks better

BTW, the article has been nominated for deletion, please participate in the discussion.

In addition, do you know how does it work? Is it a simple vote? Is there a timetable how long it can be nominated for deletion? And who has the last word?

Bloger 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the info.

One thing I don’t understand if I tell you that I believe so and so isn’t that enough to verify that at least officially I stand for that?

In other words the group says for what it stands, what is there still to verify?

It’s not as if I say a fact concerning someone else or something else then I will have to verify my finding.

But when Gorge W Bush - for example - says on the white house web site that he is against abortion, and I state this fact, that he himself said so, do I still have to verify by bringing an article in time magazine “BTW in time mag it was said so and so” I would think that a testification of the subject himself is the strongest at least when the investigation is on what he said publicly, since in my case the group’s goal is to inform the public on there public opinion so what’s said publicly is what counts the most

Bloger 21:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is what I found on the WP:V and I don’t understand why my article is different

Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic.

A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.

Bloger 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a response to the suggestion that my grammatical changes on the Fox News Channel article might be controversial. I don't see how they could have been, since I never make arbitrary changes or changes where there might be more than one opinion. I would have appreciated being reminded what they were and hope that the errors were not reinstated!

I certainly don't see the point of gridlocking discussion about minor mechanical errors about which there is no controversy.

Thanks.

-Geof Garvey LINK Book Development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.115.255.20 (talk • contribs) 15:06, May 16, 2006

My apologies: I misread the history, or clicked on the wrong user page. It turns out that the user who edited the Fox News Channel page immediately before you did introduced vandalism, and I must have misread it and thought you had introduced it. This was completely a mistake on my part, and you should have never gotten a warning on your talk page. Best, --Deville (Talk) 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course, this isn't an award, and in fact is essentially vandalism. So I removed it from my User page, but, hey, this isn't the first time I've gotten some entertaining stuff on my Talk page, now is it? -- Deville (Talk) 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your turn to ask the question. Tintin (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Your Q.186 did last 11 minutes :-) Tintin (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry about the error in Q.189, and sorry about the comment above. I am frequently getting into trouble with my attempted jokes these days in wikipedia :-/ Recently someone threatened to sue me over what (I thought) was a harmless leg-pull :-(

Hello Deville! Thank you for your support at my request for adminship, and for fighting through edit conflicts to do so! I hope all is going well in the wonderful world of mathematics (if not, please let me know! That could really throw off my weather forecast...). Anyway, thanks again, and if you ever see something that I could be doing better, please leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm from N.O. which is a very... interesting place to live these days. NawlinWiki 14:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not arrogantly refer to my insertion of a relevant and cited poll as "nonsense", or "vandalism".--69.249.195.232 02:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Deville! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.

I noticed you have quite the fetish for voting =D. mboverload@ 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I never really studied latin, I got "flammifer" from Tolkien, geek that I am. Though I'm aware it has the same construction as "aquifer" and "lucifer".

I'm glad to see the Mumia thing isn't degenerating into a fight, as I thought it would. flammifer^talk 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Deville. I've removed prod tag from eventology, see Talk:eventology, for my reasons. Also see the discussion here. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Deville, our friend Bduke disappeared... He thinks about Elephants, "original researches" and things like that. I ask you to join our discussion, because it seems Bduke needs your help. Please, read the beginning of the discussion here and go to my talk page. If you cannot defend your point of view, you should ask reinstatement of the "Certainty_Principle". With best wishes, Rcq 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Deville. You are aware of Sam Vimes, from the Cricket project and quiz I hope? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC).Reply

I am! But I'm not sure of the context of your question? -- Deville (Talk) 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, it's isomorphic (well maybe it isn't) to the topic header.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's isomorphic iff the map from you to Sam is one-to-one and onto. And respects the group action. ;P Seriously, that went under my radar somehow, I'm not sure how I missed his name, and I vote in a lot of RfAdmins. --Deville (Talk) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey...I just noticed your key editing interest. I don't remember why...but one of the stubs I made a while ago was Steve Scalise. As he is a Louisiana politician, I thought you might want to know about it and feel invited to add to it and/or edit it. Best, Kukini 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I actually like playing/editing in Wikipedia for about the same reasons. Kukini 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I am hopeful. Apparently we gave England enough of a scare that they are talking about bringing Rooney back early. After their play against Paraguay I think a draw against England is possible. Guettarda 13:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I found I have the same problem. I didn't realise that fiddling with the image size might help - the only concern is they are going to make the page very slow to open for someone with a slow browser. But if it works, might as well go with it. Guettarda 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm - for me, some of the other images are showing up while others are not. It may be a technical limitation to control server load... suppose I should figure out who would know and ask... Guettarda 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

1) Hey, no problem, glad you noticed

2) Ye gods, I love that name. So Southern, and yet so... memorable.

V. Joe 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I also added a stub on his hometown of Sugartown, Louisiana V. Joe 04:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Deville, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, though I do wonder whether you had read up about Sir Samuel Vimes, the Duke of Ankh when making them - your description fits Sir Samuel almost exactly (and, if you say so, me too... ;)) Sam Vimes 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why'd you revert "social democracy" to "social liberalism"? "Social liberalism" is generally a U.S.-centric term which means supporting the sorts of social positions the Democrats do, without reference to being economically liberal or conservative (or to being a foreign-policy liberal or conservative). In Europe, most of the parties whose platform is closest to the Democrats tend to call themselves "Social Democrats". The article social liberalism is rather confused, though the statement Social democrats believe in the moral right of the majority to regulate everyone and everything. Social liberals see democracy and parliamentarianism as mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote make it seem that the "social liberal" label should apply more to a tendency within the Republican Party rather than the Democratic Party, as that statement makes social liberalism sound much more capitalist than the Democrats.

How about:

• The Democratic Party's political views today are usually called liberal in the United States, even though some Democrats hold political views outside the general view of American liberalism. In an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered social-democratic, as liberalism generally has a different meaning outside the United States than its meaning in the U.S. The Democratic Party's political views have roots in the United States' progressive movement and in the ideas of intellectuals such as John Dewey.

The bit about Dewey is taken from the much more clear section on social liberalism in the liberalism article - which would make a better article about social liberalism than the existing article. Though I still think only Americans (and maybe Brits) would call that ideology social liberalism.

Very good. I think this is significantly better than what is in the article now. --Deville (Talk) 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem; we all make mistakes, that's why I supplied a custom edit summary instead of clicking the rollback button - I wanted to explain the reason for the reversion. I can understand why you reverted the anon change, though - It's frustrating to see anon edits without edit summaries like that one. Oh well, no harm done! Mindmatrix 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

on june 16, you removed city nicknames from various cities in AZ...if you live in NYC, then would you really know enough about Arizona to start removing nicknames from cities that are on the other side of the country...you look like an idiot, and now a vandal...what were you thinking???

Q215 was answered a few days ago, but Dingbatdan is not around - would you like to pose another under Rule 3? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Deville. I think you are definitely ready for it. I am happy to nominate you. Are you interested?Blnguyen | rant-line 06:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Deville. Loks like you're back. I hope you had a good break. Are you ready to go? Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Deville. You will need to activate your email. Thanks, it should be ready tomorrow morning 2 UTC( here is the evidence). Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC).Reply

Go for it.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Questions answered, I'll link it up now. -- Deville (Talk) 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you should use that word"!vote". Please consider removing that word. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC).Reply

Hi, I think you're correct, in fact I was making changes (including that one) when you were linking it up, and I got edit-conflicted several times. But in the end it worked out, I got it to the form I wanted. Again, thanks for the advice and the nom! -- Deville (Talk) 08:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

ALoan has asked you (or another) to set the next question! --Dweller 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply